Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

Bill banning abortion at 20 weeks

With Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposed, a House committee has passed a bill that would ban abortions nationwide at 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Much of the debate focused on weaking amendments by Democrats who hoped to gut the bill and allow late-term abortions in cases to protect a woman's health - even though abortions after 20 weeks are not necessary for health reasons and would allow virtually all late-term abortions to remain legal.

The committee passed the bill on a 20-12 vote and the measure now heads to the full House floor where it is expected to receive a debate and vote next week.

Also during the debate, lawmakers turned back efforts by Democrats to add a rape and incest exception to the late-term abortion ban. Rep. Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican who is the bill sponsor, said an unborn baby would be killed regardless of how she was conceived.

"The fundamental opposition here should be predicated on the notion that this child is going into the 6th month of pregnancy," Franks said.

According to Franks, "Knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be. This is not who we are."

"Pregnancies from rape that result in abortion after the beginning of the sixth month are very rare. This bill does not address unborn children in earlier gestations. Indeed, the bill does nothing to restrict abortions performed before the beginning of the 6th month," he added. "The real question before us is not whether these unborn children entering their six-month of gestation are capable of feeling pain. The real question is, are we?"

During the hearing, former abortion practitioner Anthony Levatino told members of the committee the gruesome details of his former abortion practice and how he became pro-life following the tragic automobile accident of his child.

After the subcommittee vote for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797), Franks told LifeNews: "I understand the unfortunate reality that today's markup will be surrounded by some degree of controversy. But we, as a nation, find ourselves at a point at which we don't offer unborn children even the most basic protections - even protections we extend to animals and property."

Franks added: "The trial of Kermit Gosnell exposed late abortions for what they really are: relocated infanticide. I pray we use this as a ‘teachable moment,' in the words of President Obama, and can agree that, at the very least, we are better than dismembering babies who can feel every excruciating moment. I look forward to the bill's moving on the full Judiciary Committee and to an eventual vote on this necessary, common-sense measure."

Congressman Franks believes the national abortion ban is timely in light of the conviction of abortionist Kermit Gosnell and news reports of potentially similar gruesome late abortion practitioners around the country.

"I know when the subject is related in any way to abortion, the doors of reason and human compassion in our minds and hearts often close, and the humanity of the unborn can no longer be seen. But I pray we can at least come together to agree that we can and should draw the line at the point that these innocent babies can feel the excruciating pain of these brutal procedures," he said.

Franks added: "The case of Kermit Gosnell shocked the sensibilities of millions of Americans. However, the crushing fact is that abortions on babies just like the ones killed by Kermit Gosnell have been happening hundreds of times per day, every single day, for the past 40 years. Indeed, let us not forget that, had Kermit Gosnell dismembered these babies before they had traveled down the birth canal only moments earlier, he would have, in many places nationwide, been performing an entirely legal procedure. If America truly understands that horrifying reality, hearts and laws will change."

"To this end, I have re-introduced the D.C. Pain Capable Unborn Protection Act, which will now be amended to broaden its coverage so that its provisions will apply nationwide," he said. "Knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be. This is not who we are."

The move to expand the bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks nationwide has the strong support of the National Right to Life Committee.

"National Right to Life strongly concurs in Congressman Franks' decision that the time is ripe to seek protection for pain-capable unborn children nationwide," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "Because of publicity surrounding the trial of Kermit Gosnell and subsequent revelations about other abortionists, many Americans are becoming aware for the first time that abortions are frequently performed late in pregnancy on babies who are capable of being born alive, and on babies who will experience great pain while being killed."

Johnson added that the federal bill contains legislative findings and operative language very similar to bills already enacted in nine states, beginning in 2010, based on model legislation prepared by NRLC. Like those state laws, Mr. Franks' legislation contains findings of fact regarding the medical evidence that unborn children experience pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization (which is 22 weeks in the "LMP" system, or about the start of the sixth month), and prohibits abortion after that point, except when an acute physical condition endangers the life of the mother.

During the 2011-12 Congress, Mr. Franks' bill garnered 222 co-sponsors in the 435-member House, and received the support of a majority of House members on July 31, 2012 (roll call no. 539).

The science behind the concept of fetal pain is fully established and Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for it.

He has testified before Congress that an unborn child could feel pain at "eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier" and that a baby before birth "under the right circumstances, is capable of crying."

He and his colleagues Dr. Vincent J. Collins and Thomas J. Marzen were the top researchers to point to fetal pain decades ago. Collins, before his death, was Professor of Anesthesiology at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois and author of Principles of Anesthesiology, one of the leading medical texts on the control of pain.

"The functioning neurological structures necessary to suffer pain are developed early in a child's development in the womb," they wrote.

"Functioning neurological structures necessary for pain sensation are in place as early as 8 weeks, but certainly by 13 1/2 weeks of gestation. Sensory nerves, including nociceptors, reach the skin of the fetus before the 9th week of gestation. The first detectable brain activity occurs in the thalamus between the 8th and 10th weeks. The movement of electrical impulses through the neural fibers and spinal column takes place between 8 and 9 weeks gestation. By 13 1/2 weeks, the entire sensory nervous system functions as a whole in all parts of the body," they continued.

With Zielinski and his colleagues the first to provide the scientific basis for the concept of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand of the University of Arkansas Medical Center has provided further research to substantiate their work.

"The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies," explains Steven Calvin, M.D., perinatologist, chair of the Program in Human Rights Medicine, University of Minnesota, where he teaches obstetrics.

Much of the debate focused on weaking amendments by Democrats who hoped
to gut the bill and allow late-term abortions in cases to protect a
woman's health - even though abortions after 20 weeks are not necessary
for health reasons and would allow virtually all late-term abortions to
remain legal.

I stopped reading after this, this is such absolute bs that if the articles writer is this wrong on something so important i can't believe anything else he/she's written.

Yeah, that lost it for me too. But hey, it's LifeSite news or whatever.

Quoting Arroree:

Much of the debate focused on weaking amendments by Democrats who hoped
to gut the bill and allow late-term abortions in cases to protect a
woman's health - even though abortions after 20 weeks are not necessary
for health reasons and would allow virtually all late-term abortions to
remain legal.

I stopped reading after this, this is such absolute bs that if the articles writer is this wrong on something so important i can't believe anything else he/she's written.

That's great. If mom's health is at risk that late in the pregnancy, they can take the baby and give it a chance at life. There is no reason to abort.

Most serious fetal abnormalities are not even detectable until after 20 weeks of pregnancy. And like truthseeker said, a fetus is not viable outside the womb at 20 weeks. Most will die if they do not make it until at least 32 weeks inside the womb.

I am pro life. Like almost extreme in my views. I am so happy about this ban and PRAY it goes through.
That being said, I am not pro life to the point of some, where I expect a woman to risk dying to stay pregnant, or that if a baby in utero (I refuse to call it a fetus, I do not believe it is a fetus) has some genetic factor or disease that will mean it has either no chance at life, or will have a horrible life with little to no quality, then it is only merciful to terminate the pregnancy. I wish they would do something so the baby doesn't feel anything though. So I think there should be stipulations in the ban for specific medical conditions for the mother AND baby. If I had a pregnancy with a baby who would be born with Harlequins disease for example, I would NOT force my baby to live that way.

Quoting TruthSeeker.:

Quoting kiriis:

I never thought I would see so much agreement is this group. That said, I also agree. If you and baby are healthy, why wait so long?

There are a few reasons for late abortions other than mothers life is at risk. There are conditions that are often found later in pregnancy around 20 weeks of fatal genetic conditions where the baby Will die in the womb or shortly there after. Some conditions are horrific and painful for the baby. Some believe it is more merciful to abort than to make the baby suffer. Think Trisomy18. Other conditions are extremely low to no amniotic fluid and the mothers organs are literally crushing the baby to death.

Unfortunately this isn't a black or white issue. There are Extreme circumstances where late term abortion may need to stay legal. But, I vehemently disagree with late term "just because" abortions.

That's great. If mom's health is at risk that late in the pregnancy, they can take the baby and give it a chance at life. There is no reason to abort.

Most serious fetal abnormalities are not even detectable until after 20 weeks of pregnancy. And like truthseeker said, a fetus is not viable outside the womb at 20 weeks. Most will die if they do not make it until at least 32 weeks inside the womb.

I do not agree with "late term" abortion in general, barring special circumstances. When I was pregnant at 20 weeks; I had an amnio done and it took 9 business days to get test results back. Back then AZ had a ban on abortions after 22 weeks. That only gave me 7-8 days to make a choice. That is no where near enough time to make an educated choice while pregnant. Had this ban been in place then, I no longer have a choice. Today, my question is; Can they now do an amnio safely at 16 weeks? That should be plenty of time for a woman / girl to make an educatedchoice, get counseling, or some type of emotional support before making a decision.

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.